Re: Discussion on SC numbering

I’m not sure that I agree. I think that getting the language right is hard enough and that if we are trying to write it as integrated but then publish it as separate SCs we will run into additional challenges.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

From: David MacDonald <<>>
Date: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 12:53
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>>
Cc: WCAG <<>>
Subject: Re: Discussion on SC numbering

​In the discussion, Rachael, who is a lawyer said that statues of law in legislation are updated with new text on the final​ copy and on the work ups they have <add>xxxxxx</add> and <remove>xxxxxx</remove> for reference. But on the final it is a clean new document.

I think for cases where we are modifying an existing SC, we track it as changes are being made but on the final, just release the new SC language. For reference we can also release a supporting document that shows the changes.

David and Kirsten MacDonald

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Kirkpatrick <<>> wrote:

On the agenda tomorrow is a discussion on SC numbering.  We last discussed this a few months ago and had a wiki page of different options (

The last discussion I could find is here ( and in that discussion we seemed to be getting consensus on model #2, which essentially says that we will:

  *   Not modify existing SC, instead adding a new SC that increases or adds to the existing related SC.
  *   Add new SC at the end of a guideline section. For example, if adding a new AA SC to Guideline 2.3, where 2.3.1 (A) and 2.3.2 (AAA) currently are, the new SC would be 2.3.3 (AA).

Think about this, discuss it here on the list, and we will talk about it on the call tomorrow.


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility

Received on Monday, 19 December 2016 18:03:36 UTC